You are thinking of Germany relative to your perspective. Realize almost 60% of the world's population lives between Japan, and Eastern Europe, with most of the rest in Africa, Europe and the Western Hemisphere.

Western refers to society based on culture, laws and values that developed in Europe, starting with Greek and Roman civilizations, and shaped by Christianity (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), the Enlightenment, and the French and American revolutions, and dozens of wars and cultural movements in between. Western civilization refers to any country found in Europe (including Russia) and civilizations largely dependent upon Europe for it's founding, especially the entire Western Hemisphere and Australia which are largely populated by Europeans or natives who lived and were educated in societies ruled by Europeans.

There's a book about generational cycles called Generations that talks about how there is a 4 generation cycle that repeats itself every 80 years or so cause by shared life experiences that are shaped primarily by the emotional and attitudes of society in general and their parents in particular. So, the Millenials have been shaped in attitude by 9/11, the current international conflicts, and their parents' reactions to these events.

It's called Strauss-Howe generaitonal theory. Each generation is one of 4 types (the wikipedia page has the basics, the book is interesting). So what we have is the departure of the Baby boomers from the work force and the arrival of the Millenials and the maturing of Gen X from young adult to mature adult. With this change comes a change of attitude. So, most likely what we are experiencing (saying this as an X'er) is Gen X taking the reigns from the Boomers, and establishing efficiency and control mechanisms on the work place, within a Crisis Turning. Sometime early in the next decade, the next turning will start, as the last boomers turn 65 and we will begin a new High cycle, much like the period between the end of World War II and The assassination of JFK, the bookends of the last High.

They predicted our current Crisis environment (I read their later book, the Fourth Turning, from 1997) with a start date between 2000 & 2005, 18-23 years from 1982, the beginning of the last Turning.

While these two spearheaded the current rule, I've read that more than 20 quarterbacks advocated for the rule. The point of allowing the teams to have the balls the week before the game is to allow equipment managers to massage the balls the week before the game to condition the balls to their quarterback's or wide receiver's preferences, mostly by wearing the waxy cover off the leather so the balls are less likely to slip. They may also be able to soften the leather through some method of their preference. The quarterbacks can then practice with the balls to ensure they like them. On game day the balls are all inflated and checked by officials before the game starts.

On this occasion, the Patriots ball manager, probably working with Brady's approval, took the balls from the officials, entered a restroom where no cameras present, came out less than two minutes later, and took the balls to the field. The official has been shown on video noticeably distraught because the balls were missing. He requested the reserve balls, but when the Patriots balls showed up on the field, allowed them to be used.

This will no doubt lead to several rule changes, and penalties for the Patriots and several employees.

The rules around the balls are all arbitrary. They could have a rule that a different ball is used on every play, and it must be new from the factory. They could have that each team can have a much wider range of inflation levels on the ball (8-15 lbs) instead of the current range. But the teams all have to agree to the rules, and everybody involved need to abide by those rules.

Let's see, things were a mix of great, OK and awful when completely decentralized. Now, we have moved toward centralization, and we've gone toward mostly awful with a few bright spots left (not counting private schools since they are mostly fine and decentralized).

So where do I think it went wrong? The centralization of the money in the hands of the state and federal government, who have a strong incentive to cooperate with the union leaders who are probably friends of theirs since the unions help (re)elect those who promise to funnel more money their way.

Do you know what, I'd hate to be a great teacher and stuck getting paid on a pay scale based on seniority with the lazy bum down the hall who doesn't do a good job. I'd much rather have a system that gives me the freedom to compete to be a superior teach who makes a superior wage, even if it results in inequality. Do you know why? Because prices send information to people who want jobs, or students who are interested in becoming teachers. If science teaching jobs make $70,000 instead of $50,000 for an English teacher, that's a good thing. Do you know why? Because young scientifically minded students will see that, and say "I can make $70,000 to teach science? Sign me up."

I also think that the unions are a problem because all of the money being spent on education, how much is going to retirement benefits, with teachers claiming to be underpaid, but if you include their retirement, they may be making significantly above market value. How much is going to retired teachers who are outliving the administration's math on how much they needed to set aside to pay the teachers more in retirement than they made when they were in the classroom?

Single payer is bad. Do you want to know why? No competition. Imagine our politicians and doctors running our medical profession the same way our politicians and educational establishment worked together to destroy education in this country?

Do you want to know what will work at much lower cost than what we have? Turn the hospitals into co-ops. Instead of paying an insurance company, you pay a hospital for a monthly membership. If you have to go in, everything is already paid for. But, if you live in an area with a large enough population, you'll actually have choices, which will force the co-op to compete on price, efficiency and results with other co-ops. Perhaps the various doctors and other medical professionals in the area then come to an agreement with the various hospitals that they will treat your hospital membership like insurance, and the hospital could pay out for your preventative care like your insurance company. Or perhaps the co-op will hire the necessary personnel to provide all care except for extraordinary things (Exceptional care only provided by research institutions, etc, which they could contribute a certain amount to whether used or not, or pay as you go like insurance.)

With this model, you'll get the benefits of single payer with the added benefit of having choices, so you don't get stuck in a situation where there are 3 month waiting lists, but you can't do anything about it because you have no choice.

There is not an economic failure in the state. There is a state government revenue shortfall, probably due to Brownback and the other Republicans in the state government trying to emulate Texas' tax code without some of the advantages that state has (lots of oil and multimillionaires), and over optimism about the growth the tax changes would cause.

I have family in rural Kansas, and their school budgets are being hit hard, forcing consolidations between different cities so they can consolidate administrative costs. The result is that some kids are being bussed 10-15 miles from their hometown to another town for school (not counting those that have to be on the bus for as much as half an hour before that because they are on a bus route and live 2-12 miles from town).

In my opinion, school funding should be driven at the local level instead of from the state and federal level. If you cut the taxes the appropriate amount at the state and federal level, then the money will be available for the local governments to raise taxes and pay and prioritize these issues locally (In the poor areas of KC, Topeka and Wichita, the state should pick up the slack). Then instead of people complaining that the state is dictating consolidation, the parents and tax payers in the city will have to face the facts about how much spending is appropriate in a town with 25 children, but at least they will have to come to grips with the facts, and they will have to make a decision made by them and their neighbors instead of the state government in Topeka.

My wife has gotten our daughter into a program called Brain Highways, that may help a child cure their autism, or other similar conditions. The program costs around $2000 (as of a few years ago), done at home, parents guiding their children through physical therapy.

Their science says that there are three sections of the brain. The lower brain controls all involuntary body functions. The upper brain controls thought and memory. The middle part of the brain controls things that we have control over, but handles them on a subconscious level. So, when I run, I don't think (step, step step), I just start running. Some functions controlled by this part of the brain have to do with focus, processing and understanding the surrounding environment, controlling body activity, etc.

What their science claims is that a person who has an underdeveloped middle brain has to compensate by forcing the upper brain do handle these activities, but it's not very good at it. And since the upper brain is distracted into focusing on the mid brains role, it can't do what it's supposed to. Fortunately, you can train the brain to finish it's middle brain development by doing some therapy that emulates some of the activities that babies do when they lay on the floor (perhaps the rise of autism has been caused by parents holding their children a little too much instead of giving them exploration time on the floor?). Specifically, they teach a series of motions where the child rolls over a couple of times in a particular way, lays on the floor and moves their arms and legs in proscribed patters, then pulling themselves across the floor on their bellies. They progress naturally from dragging themselves inch by inch using just their hands to adding toes, then eventually using their whole legs and flying across the floor.

Our oldest had the greatest deficiency, has been very resistant to doing the work, and she hasn't completely overcome her limitations, and my wife hasn't forced the issue due to her resistance. Our second was about half developed, and has completed the program. Our third was completely developed before she started.

Our oldest has also made some progress using sound/body therapy, called Interactive Metronome, to speed up her brain and synchronize it with her body. This therapy involves the subject listening to a sound on head phones, and timing motions to trigger a button (attached to wrists, or positioned on the floor) in time with the beat. The longer somebody practices, the more they will be able to get the right timing, the more in sync the body and the brain, and the faster the brain will work. Some parents we know have reported significant developments in focus and faster thinking. We haven't progressed as far with this because it's about $1200 per semester, so we've only made it about halfway up the progress tree, and now our therapist is moving 500 miles away to live near family. There is software to do this at home that can be purchased, and I'm probably going to tell my wife to buy it soon.

Once a child is fully integrated, with a fully functioning brain, there is some catch up time as they progress through normal development stages that they've lacked. But eventually, most children should be able to function completely normally.

From when Carter was proven to be such a poor president and lost the 1980 election, only Obama has managed to get over the 50% mark as a Democrat. Without Obama's advantages, Clinton probably will top out in the high 40s.

What most people don't realize is that Politics is generational, so as the Boomer generation ages out, Gen X and Y will assert their own generational understanding on American politics. Gen X, raised or coming of age during the troubled Carter administration and the success of the Reagan administration probably leans toward Republican. Gen Y coming of age during the Clinton and Bush administrations and affected by 9/11, the Boston bombing and the psychology of fighting wars is probably going to have a strong hawk or protectionist faction that stays leaning right while the left will claim the social liberals and minorities.

Going forward, we are beginning to see that working class folks are realizing that the Democrats aren't interested in their economic well being (preventing the high paying jobs required to build the Keystone pipeline from coming into existence, wanting to keep energy prices high which hurts individuals on limited budgets more than others higher income individuals, encouraging high levels of poor immigrants which increases competition and reduces wages for American born workers and taking government benefits from Americans to give to non-Americans).

Realize that competition with overseas manufacturing has hindered wages for decades (I saw an article last week claim this was the primary cause of stagnant wages, and I'm personally in favor of this because it allows those poor workers to start to participate in the world economy and have a chance to crawl out of poverty), and we may finally start to see a slowing of outsourcing as India and China as their workers are making higher wages that reduce the labor cost advantage in those countries.

When even more bad news comes out about Obamacare comes out next year leading into the election, and with a corrupt and unlikable candidate like Hillary Clinton, and we're likely to see the Republicans win the next election at least. If they maintain enough Senate and House control on top of that, they will try to implement changes to Obamacare, obviously try to make their voters happy by implementing various laws that will appease their base (cutting taxes, anti-abortion laws, etc.). If there is a positive movement in economic activity and wages, people will probably attribute this to the Republicans, think that they are competent, they may even begin to draw support from some immigrant groups who recognize that Republicans aren't primarily a racist party, and are trying to maintain what makes America great instead of trying to tear it down to appease liberal critics.

Well, as a Catholic, I will say that the teaching is that someone who is divorced one incurs sin when they start sleeping with somebody else. Since, in God's eyes, the first marriage still exists, they cannot marry somebody new, and any sex between them and somebody else is adultery, and they cannot get married in a Catholic Church since they are still married. Annulments side step the issues since that means there the previous marriage was defective and never really existed in God's eyes. Also, marriages that happen outside of Catholic Churches, and without the permission of the bishop and participation of a priest are not recognized as valid masses. Since Protestants don't believe in the same things, their divorces and remarriages are handled differently if somebody decides to convert.

The people who are asking for these laws are only asking that they not be required to participate in wedding ceremonies, because they believe them to be lies that they don't want to participate in. So, the equivalent for divorces and Catholic businesses would be to refuse to participate in any marriage ceremony of a Catholic not also officiated by a Catholic priest, either to avoid the divorce/remarriage situation or just because the Catholic doesn't understand what they are doing (in the eyes of the Church and God). In order for this to occur, the business owner would have to inquire (or otherwise know) what the religion of both participants is, and if they are free to marry. I doubt many situations come up where caterers, florists, or photographers are going out of their way to inquire about these.

Concerning the Catholics and gays, realize that one of the things that can invalidate a heterosexual marriages in deceit in answering a couple of questions to this particular question during the ceremony: "N. and N., have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage? Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?" So if the person doesn't intend to follow through with a lifelong commitment, then the marriage would be defective because the person entered the union with no intent to carry out this promise/commitment.

"Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?" This promise indicates that the person agrees with the Church's teaching about the importance of having and raising children. The Church's teaching on contraception is tied into this, such that using contraception could mean that most weddings in American Catholic Churches are invalid since most Catholic couples use contraception (although more and more priests and bishops are requiring attending NFP classes before the wedding even though they can't require the couple to actually use it after they are married). The pope's recent comments about not acting like rabbits means that the individual couples should seriously consider whether they are capable of responsibly taking on children, not that they should have or not have children just because they have reached some certain number of offspring that they or somebody else dictates is enough or too many.

Since homosexuals can't answer the second question in the affirmative, they cannot legally (Church law, not civil) enter into marriage, regardless of the sinfulness of homosexual relations. Since this is a very old part of Catholic teaching, it cannot be said to be something that was instituted based on the rise of homosexuality in recent years since it far predates it.

I have a friend who is a priest who once expressed disapproval of his brother's cohabitation with his girlfriend (to their mother, his brother, and told me about it later), and wouldn't sleep under the same roof or go on vacation with them because he (the priest) didn't want his brother to think he agreed with his lifestyle choice.

How easy will it be to clean when the dimples fill with bug guts compared to a smooth surface? Get enough of the dimples filled with crap, and not only will the car look awful, but it'll probably have worse aerodynamics than the smooth car.

I think this was a more time sensitive mission, because Pluto is moving farther from the sun and scientists warned (rightly or wrongly) that it was about to freeze, and they had a window to use a gravity assist from Jupiter to get the probe there much sooner, and there was also an earlier mission snowballed.

On the other hand, Io and Europa aren't going to be any different in 5 years than they would have been a few years ago when the probe would have reached those destinations, so those missions were not as high priority than the potential impact of Pluto's orbit that they weren't sure of when they green-lighted this mission 13 years ago.

I posted on this in Sept 2012. Best to use a coop to keep the ownership of the pipes out of the hands of the government (prevent censorship and conflicts of interest). You could even bundle up the electrical lines to keep overhead low, reduce conflicts over who owns & controls polls, line positioning, etc, and even bundle the two bills together to make everybody's life a little easier.

Possible outcomes assuming no profit: Elon looks at the deal, and the possible outcomes are: #1SpaceX is wildly successful, and breaks even. SpaceX is wildly successful and loses money because of unforeseen costs. SpaceX fails, and Elon loses most of his wealth. SpaceX succeeds but doesn't run a surplus/profit, can't set anything aside, and years down the road, a launch fails and there is no reserve funds to get them through the hard times and failure happens eventually. Elon loses interest, never starts SpaceX, because he doesn't foresee the profit to launch his own rockets to jump start space colonies because governments don't want to do it themselves, and the US space industry continues to rot.